Horta v. Sullivan ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion












    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________

    No. 92-1962

    DEBRA HORTA,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    CHARLES B. SULLIVAN, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge,
    ___________

    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
    ____________________

    and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
    _____________

    ____________________

    Sheila M. Tierney with whom Tierney Law Office was on brief for
    __________________ ___________________
    appellant.
    Linda M. Walsh with whom Kroll & Tract was on brief for appellees
    ______________ _____________
    Charles B. Sullivan, Paul G. Sadeck, Edward Mello and the Town of
    Freetown.
    James F. Gettens with whom Healy & Rocheleau, P.C. was on brief
    _________________ ________________________
    for appellees Jeffrey Mennino, James K. Bowles, and the Town of
    Lakeville.
    ____________________

    September 29, 1994
    ____________________




















    CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. In our earlier
    ______________________

    disposition of this appeal1, we disposed of all claims

    except appellant's claim against the town of Lakeville under

    the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 258

    (Count IV). We retained appellate jurisdiction over the

    latter claim against Lakeville pending an answer to the

    following question, which we certified to the Massachusetts

    Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to its Rule 1:03:

    Do the discretionary decisions of a police officer
    to begin and continue the high-speed pursuit of a
    vehicle then being operated in violation of law
    involve policymaking or planning for purposes of
    immunity under Massachusetts General Law ch. 258,
    10(b)?

    The Massachusetts court has now answered that

    question in the negative. Horta v. Sullivan, 418 Mass. 615,
    _____ ________

    615 (1994). Accordingly, Mennino's actions were not entitled

    to immunity under 10(b), and the district court's granting

    of summary judgment on Count IV in favor of Lakeville was

    improper.2 Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 24 (1st Cir. 1993).
    _____ ________


    ____________________

    1. Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 1993).
    ________

    2. Although for other reasons we earlier vacated summary
    judgment on appellants' claim against Freetown under the
    Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Horta, 4 F.3d at 25, the
    _____
    answer of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to our
    certified question appears germane to that claim as well, as
    we thought might be the case. Id. Since that claim is no
    ___
    longer before us, however, we do not address it at this time,
    but leave to the parties and the district court any action
    that may be appropriate in light of the Massachusetts court's
    opinion.

    -2-















    We therefore vacate summary judgment on this claim and remand

    to the district court for further proceedings consistent with

    our opinion herein and the opinion of the Massachusetts

    Supreme Judicial Court. We note that while our certification

    was pending before the Massachusetts high court, the

    Massachusetts state legislature amended the Massachusetts

    Tort Claims Act. See Act approved January 14, 1994, 1993
    ___

    Mass. Legis. Serv. ch. 495, 57, 144 (H.B. 5620) (West).

    The Supreme Judicial Court did not rule on how these

    amendments might affect Horta's claim, if at all, since the

    issue was not before it. See Horta, 418 Mass. at 622 n.14.
    ___ _____

    We similarly do not reach this issue, but anticipate that the

    district court, if called on to do so by one or more of the

    parties, will rule on the materiality of these amendments to

    the pending claim and will factor the amendments into its

    final outcome if and to the extent appropriate.

    Count IV is vacated and remanded.
    ________________________________



















    -3-







Document Info

Docket Number: 92-1962

Filed Date: 9/29/1994

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016